Who's crystal clear and who's all wet when it to comes to Minnesota weather forecasters?

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Thanksgiving Storm Coming? Rain? Snow?

Now that more seasonable weather has come to Minnesota, weather aficionados are wondering if a legitimate snowstorm is around the corner. As of today (Saturday), the National Weather Service was anticipating a larger liquid storm for the Twin Cities to arrive in the Thanksgiving time frame. As always, time will tell.

29 comments:

Not much to comment unfortunately.Another confirmation of my theory that if it's cold enough the storm stays south; if it tracks north enough that is because it is warm enough to bring rain. Same story over and over again.

Expect alot of hype for this Thanksgiving storm, but in the end will be rain with some minor backside wintery precip. No big deal for our neck of the woods, but people will still talk it up because it falls on a holiday.

As data on google searches is a good estimate of items popularity, the number of comments on this blog can be thought of as good predictors of the impact of a 'storm'.Obviously this is turning into a non-event considering the lack of comments.

The way I look at it, any form and amount of wintery precipitation is worth talking about & hyping, especially when it falls near or on an important travel day. This is likely not a major snow maker, but late WED & THUR should feature at least some ice/snow. Even if it is minimal amounts, it will cause huge problems on the roads.

The problem is that many people, some on this board, only consider 6"+ of snow to be worthy of "hype". If you are one of them, then you just don't get it. The fact is that even a trace of ICE causes problem. Imagine if we get .10 to .20 in. of ICE or an inch or two of snow on Thansgiving over portions of so. MN. There is certainly potential for that. This is worth "hyping".

We can be grateful for a non-event, but as Tom mentions, a bleeping tenth-inch of ice will cause humungous road hazards and people could die. On a holiday. You know, all the awesome things that come with a Minnesota winter.

I am not sure I agree with @Novak on this.The problem is not that a storm with the potential of ice should not be mentioned. It should. The problem is that when there is too much uncertainty about it, 'hyping' actually backfires.If a lot of 'hypes' turn out to be non-events (and I personally think this will end up being a non-event), then people stop paying attention.There has been a lot of research on this, and a lot of documented evidence with respect to severe weather: too many tornado warnings, that people stopped paying attention, and of course failed to heed the one they needed to.So I think the mets should be extremely careful in deciding when to hype or not something, because if people do not take you seriously then we do indeed have a problem.

I will error on the side of warning people/travelers well ahead of time. I believe most of the general public is smart enough to understand that weather is NOT a perfect science & that 4casts will change/evolve over time.

On the other hand, I do find it foolish when 4casters attempt to be exact well in advance of a storm/season. For instance, trying to accurately predict how much snow will fall in a winter season is foolish, esp. in July! Also, trying to predict exact snow amounts & locations beyond 48 hours is foolish too.

I think there is a big difference between providing necessary information and "hype." To me, good info is: watch the skies and stay aware, there is some weather coming and it could be concerning.

Hype is: SNOWPOCALYPSE!!!! 12-18 inches possible!!!! (When there is only a 5% chance of that much and 3-4" is far more likely.)

I agree that too much of the latter makes people tune out - and that is bad, because sometimes there actually is a snowpocalypse to warn about! I appreciate your work, Tom Novak. You give the info and make it meaningful, but don't jazz it up unnecessarily. As a result, when you say batten down the hatches for an upcoming storm, I listen!

I know this is a while out yet for the NAM, but the NAM model at 78 hours seems to be pulling the low straight north out of Iowa and then into Southwestern Minnesota. This would lead to a lot less precipitation than is being forecast.

Love these impressive mid to upper-level low situations. You don't have as much of a warm air surge at low levels = more opportunity for snow & the low can manufacture its own cold air. Confidence is high for a significant snow MON/TUE.

I'm starting to get the feeling of a near miss for at least the eastern half of the metro? The storm track has shifted farther northwest; Novak's twitter statement a couple of hours ago regarding a mix for MSP and east.

Paul Douglas posted earlier about a slushy snow and had a view different totals, not specific enough yet. He did note 3-6 for the metro, seems that temp was his concern for more. Fun storm to watch as totals bounce around. Good news is warmer temps by end of week (I hate snow)

I love the talk surrounding this storm. It is covering a large amount of real estate which means we will get something at least fairly significant. Models don't seem to be "blowing it up" which means there is some consistency. I like the little wobble to the south and west only because storms seem to move within the 24 window of onset--hopefully back to the north and east. Bring it!!!!

Dave Dahl(I know not the most reliable source) is on record on his KSTP blog stating that "earlier it looked like the western and central part of the state was getting the heaviest snow, now its the eastern part of the state including MSP".....his current totals are 4-8"+.....still seems there's abit of uncertainy in everyone's forecast will be a fun one to follow though....as always s I hope it brings us the most snow!

For some reason the NWS site wasn't loading on my phone. It's loading now and I just read the reason why a warning hasn't been posted yet for the metro. Apparently the NWS is having some issues with timing the snow for the metro. Let's see what happens!

I knew that once Dave Dahl got back on rotation (after Yuhas, who was at 3-6 inches) that he'd up it, no matter what the models were saying. Remember what he said for the last "storm." I think he just said "eastward shift" to make it appear he was more in step with Yuhas. Multiple forecasters from the same station having such different perspectives always bugged me. Is a conference call too much to ask?